The scene depicted in the painting is Webster concluding his debate with Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina. My life upon it, sir, they would not. . . Where in these debates do we see a possible argument in defense of Constitutional secession by the states, later claimed by the Southern Confederacy before, during, and after the Civil War? Sir, when arraigned before the bar of public opinion, on this charge of slavery, we can stand up with conscious rectitude, plead not guilty, and put ourselves upon God and our country. [Its leader] would have a knot before him, which he could not untie. Sir, I am one of those who believe that the very life of our system is the independence of the states, and that there is no evil more to be deprecated than the consolidation of this government. . . The United States' democratic process was evolving and its leaders were putting the newly ratified Constitution into practice. Webster pursued his objective through a rhetorical strategy that ignored Benton, the principal opponent of New England sectionalism, and that provoked Hayne into an exposition and defense of what became the South Carolina doctrine of nullification. I understand the gentleman to maintain, that, without revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the general government lies in a direct appeal to the interference of the state governments. The main issue of the Webster-Hayne Debate was the nature of the country that had been created by the Constitution. I wish to see no new powers drawn to the general government; but I confess I rejoice in whatever tends to strengthen the bond that unites us, and encourages the hope that our Union may be perpetual. . The Webster-Hayne Debate between New Hampshire Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne highlighted the sectional nature of the controversy. In fact, Webster's definition of the Constitution as for the People, by the People, and answerable to the People would go on to form one of the most enduring ideas about American democracy. Excerpts from Ratification Documents of Virginia a Ratifying Conventions>New York Ratifying Convention. The speech is also known for the line Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable, which would subsequently become the state motto of North Dakota, appearing on the state seal. We who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and selfish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to regard, with equal eye, the good of the whole, in whatever is within our power of legislation. Webster stood in favor of Connecticut's proposal that the federal government should stop surveying western land and sell the land it had already surveyed to boost it's revenue and strengthen it's authority. . . The growing support for nullification was quite obvious during the days of the Jackson Administration, as events such as the Webster-Hayne Debate, Tariff of 1832, Order of Nullification, and Worcester v. Georgia all made the tension grow between the North and the South. Its like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. Robert Young Hayne spent more than two decades in elected offices, including mayor of Charleston, member of South Carolina's legislature, attorney general, and then governor of the state. The Constitutional Convention: The Great Compromise, The Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830: Summary & Issues, The History of American Presidential Debates, Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening: Sermons & Biography, Who Was Susan B. Anthony? Well, the southern states were infuriated. . . Then he began his speech, his words flowing on so completely at command that a fellow senator who heard him likened his elocution to the steady flow of molten gold. An equally. The militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. . [O]pinions were expressed yesterday on the general subject of the public lands, and on some other subjects, by the gentleman from South Carolina [Senator Robert Hayne], so widely different from my own, that I am not willing to let the occasion pass without some reply. Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of Kentucky, were I to ask whether, if such an ordinance could have been applied to his own state, while it yet was a wilderness, and before Boone had passed the gap of the Alleghany, he does not suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate greatness of that commonwealth? The idea that a state could nullify a federal law, associated with South Carolina, especially after the publication of John C. Calhouns South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828) in response to the tariff passed in that year. The Hayne-Webster Debate was an unplanned series of speeches in the Senate, during which Robert Hayne of South Carolina interpreted the Constitution as little more than a treaty between sovereign states, and Daniel Webster expressed the concept of the United States as one nation. But, according to the gentlemans reading, the object of the Constitution was to consolidate the government, and the means would seem to be, the promotion of injustice, causing domestic discord, and depriving the states and the people of the blessings of liberty forever. But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. [was] fixed, forever, the character of the population in the vast regions Northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. It is only by a strict adherence to the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the federal government, that this system works well, and can answer the great ends for which it was instituted. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. In a time when the country was undergoing some drastic changes, this debate managed to encapsulate the essence of the growing tensions dividing the nation. . This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. . Strange was it, however, that in heaping reproaches upon the Hartford Convention he did not mark how nearly its leaders had mapped out the same line of opposition to the national Government that his State now proposed to take, both relying upon the arguments of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 179899. . The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to bring the Union into discussion, as a mere question of present and temporary expediency; nothing more than a mere matter of profit and loss. Van Buren responded to the Panic of 1837 with the idea of the independent treasury, which was a. a system of depositing money in select independent banks They switched from a. the tariff of 1828 to national power . Why? As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense. Speech of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, January 20, 1830. Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in It cannot be doubted, and is not denied, that before the formation of the constitution, each state was an independent sovereignty, possessing all the rights and powers appertaining to independent nations; nor can it be denied that, after the Constitution was formed, they remained equally sovereign and independent, as to all powers, not expressly delegated to the federal government. Would it be safe to confide such a treasure to the keeping of our national rulers? In all the efforts that have been made by South Carolina to resist the unconstitutional laws which Congress has extended over them, she has kept steadily in view the preservation of the Union, by the only means by which she believes it can be long preserveda firm, manly, and steady resistance against usurpation. . But I take leave of the subject. Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. What a commentary on the wisdom, justice, and humanity, of the Southern slave owner is presented by the example of certain benevolent associations and charitable individuals elsewhere. The 1830 Webster-Hayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s, but historians have largely ignored the sectional interests underpinning Webster's argument on behalf of Unionism and a transcendent nationalism. Allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that I call this the South Carolina doctrine, only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. Andrew Jackson & the Nullification Crisis | The Hermitage "The most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress" may have been Webster's 1830 "Second Reply to Hayne", a South Carolina Senator who had echoed John C. Calhoun's case for state's rights.. . Webster-Hayne Debate book. The Commercial Greatness of the United States, Special Message to Congress (Tyler Doctrine), Estranged Labour and The Communist Manifesto, State of the Union Address Part II (1848). . In this moment in American history, the federal government had relatively little power. . Most are forgettable, to put it charitably. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) | Case, Significance & Summary. That led into a debate on the economy, in which Webster attacked the institution of slavery and Hayne labeled the policy of protectionist tariffs as the consolidation of a strong central government, which he called the greatest of evils. There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the most grave and important duty, which I feel to be devolved on me, by this occasion. An equally talented orator, Webster rose as the advocate of the North in the debate with his captivating reply to Hayne's initial argument. The Webster-Hayne Debates | Teaching American History I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Constitution. Every scheme or contrivance by which rulers are able to procure the command of money by means unknown to, unseen or unfelt by, the people, destroys this security. In the course of my former remarks, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest of evils, the consolidation of this government. Can any man believe, sir, that, if twenty-three millions per annum was now levied by direct taxation, or by an apportionment of the same among the states, instead of being raised by an indirect tax, of the severe effect of which few are aware, that the waste and extravagance, the unauthorized imposition of duties, and appropriations of money for unconstitutional objects, would have been tolerated for a single year? The debates between daniel webster of massachusetts and robert hayne of south carolina gave. The Union to be preserved, while it suits local and temporary purposes to preserve it; and to be sundered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. . The 1830 WebsterHayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s, but historians have largely ignored the sectional interests underpinning Webster's argument on behalf of Unionism and a transcendent nationalism. Competing Conceptions of Union and Ordered Liberty in The Webster-Hayne He entered the Senate on that memorable day with a slow and stately step and took his seat as though unconscious of the loud buzz of expectant interest with which the crowded auditory greeted his appearance. We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."[1]. Correspondence Between Anthony Butler and Presiden State of the Union Address Part II (1846). Daniel Webster argued against nullification (the idea that states could disobey federal laws) arguing in favor of a strong federal government which would bind the states together under the Constitution. Understand the 1830 debate's significance through an overview of issues of the Constitution, the Union, and state sovereignty. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. [2] We deal in no abstractions. The people read Webster's speech and marked him as the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. Hayne, Robert Young | South Carolina Encyclopedia . . Address to the People of the United States, by the What are the main points of difference between Webster and Hayne, especially on the question of the nature of the Union and the Constitution? Let us look at the historical facts. On January 19, 1830, Hayne attacked the Foot Resolution and labeled the Northeasterners as selfish and unprincipled for their support of protectionism and conservative land policies. New England, the Union, and the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated. . Sir, there does not exist, on the face of the whole earth, a population so poor, so wretched, so vile, so loathsome, so utterly destitute of all the comforts, conveniences, and decencies of life, as the unfortunate blacks of Philadelphia, and New York, and Boston. They undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basisnot a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between states, but a Constitution; a popular government, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches, with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. Hayne maintained that the states retained the authority to nullify federal law, Webster that federal law expressed the will of the American people and could not be nullified by a minority of the people in a state. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. . This episode was used in nineteenth century America as a Biblical justification for slavery. Hayne's few but zealous partizans shielded him still, and South Carolina spoke with pride of him. . Webster and Hayne on the American Constitution MTEL Speech: Notable Debates & Speeches in U.S. History, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858: Summary & Significance, Psychological Research & Experimental Design, All Teacher Certification Test Prep Courses, The Significance of Daniel Webster's Argument, MTEL Speech: Principles of Argument & Debate, MTEL Speech: Understanding Persuasive Communication, MTEL Speech: Public Argument in Democratic Societies. But to remove all doubt it is expressly declared, by the 10th article of the amendment of the Constitution, that the powers not delegated to the states, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.. . Far, indeed, in my wishes, very far distant be the day, when our associated and fraternal stripes shall be severed asunder, and when that happy constellation under which we have risen to so much renown, shall be broken up, and be seen sinking, star after star, into obscurity and night! It is, sir, the peoples Constitution, the peoples government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. Webster-Hayne debate - Wikipedia Religious Views: Letter to the Editor of the Illin Democratic Party Platform 1860 (Douglas Faction), (Northern) Democratic Party Platform Committee. The Webster-Hayne Debate - 1830 - YouTube . The United States, under the Constitution and federal government, was a single, unified nation, not a coalition of sovereign states. Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. His ideas about federalism and his interpretation of the Constitution as a document uniting the states under one supreme law were highly influential in the eyes of his contemporaries and would influence the rebuilding of the nation after the Civil War. . This debate exposed the critically different understandings of the nature of the American. One of those was the Webster-Hayne debate, a series of unplanned speeches presented before the Senate between January 19th and 27th of 1830. . Lincoln-Douglas Debates History & Significance | What Was the Lincoln-Douglas Debate? The debate was on. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the Confederacy. Are we in that condition still? I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. . I now proceed to show that it is perfectly safe, and will practically have no effect but to keep the federal government within the limits of the Constitution, and prevent those unwarrantable assumptions of power, which cannot fail to impair the rights of the states, and finally destroy the Union itself. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. He must cut it with his sword. . Who Won the Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830? - Abbeville Institute If I could, by a mere act of my will, put at the disposal of the federal government any amount of treasure which I might think proper to name, I should limit the amount to the means necessary for the legitimate purposes of the government. In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. Gloomy and downcast of late, Massachusetts men walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. For the next several days, the men traded speeches which contemporaries of the time described as the greatest orations ever delivered in the Senate. . The measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. . Compare And Contrast The Tension Between North And South Before his term as a U.S. senator, Hayne had served as a state senator, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, South Carolina's Speaker of the House, and Attorney General of South Carolina. The action, the drama, the suspensewho needs the movies? Several state governments or courts, some in the north, had espoused the idea of nullification prior to 1828. The object of the Framers of the Constitution, as disclosed in that address, was not the consolidation of the government, but the consolidation of the Union. It was not to draw power from the states, in order to transfer it to a great national government, but, in the language of the Constitution itself, to form a more perfect union; and by what means?